ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION PROJECT
DELIVERY CYCLE TIME
ANALYSIS
Final Report 518
Prepared by:
David C. Rose
Dye Management Group, Inc.
City Center Bellevue, Suite 1700
500 108th Avenue NE
Bellevue, Washington 98004
October 2005
Prepared for:
Arizona Department of Transportation
206 South 17 Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
in cooperation with
the U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
DISCLAIMER
The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the facts
and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the
official views or policies of the Arizona Department of Transportation or the Federal
Highway Administration. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or
regulation. Trade or manufacturers' names which may appear herein are cited only because
they are considered essential to the objectives of the report. The U.S. Government and the
State of Arizona do not endorse products or manufacturers.
Technical Report Documentation Page
1. Report No.
FHWA-AZ-05-518
2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No.
5. Report Date
October 2005
4. Title and Subtitle
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PROJECT DELIVERY
CYCLE TIME ANALYSIS 6. Performing Organization Code
7. Authors
David C. Rose
8. Performing Organization Report No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No.
Dye Management Group, Inc.
City Center Bellevue, Suite 1700
500 108th Avenue NE
Bellevue, Washington 98004
11. Contract or Grant No.
SPR-PL-1(59) 518
13.Type of Report & Period Covered
FINAL
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address
Arizona Department of Transportation
206 S. 17th Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
14. Sponsoring Agency Code
15. Supplementary Notes
Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration
16. Abstract
The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) conducted research to quantify project delivery cycle time. The
purpose of this research was to compare ADOT with other state departments of transportation. This research
found that there are significant challenges in establishing measures of project delivery cycle time from data in
ADOT’s various information systems. These challenges limited the ability of the research to provide a meaningful
comparison with other states. The principal recommendation from the study was the need to determine
standardized procedures across all ADOT program areas for establishing project schedule baselines and for
recording information on accomplishments and project durations.
17. Key Words
Project delivery, project cycle time
18. Distribution Statement
Document is available to the U.S. public
through the National Technical
Information Service, Springfield,
Virginia, 22161
19. Security Classification
Unclassified
20. Security Classification
Unclassified
21. No. of Pages
36
22. Price
23. Registrant's Seal
SI* (MODERN METRIC) CONVERSION FACTORS
APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS FROM SI UNITS
Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol
LENGTH LENGTH
in Inches 25.4 millimeters mm mm millimeters 0.039 inches in
ft Feet 0.305 meters m m meters 3.28 feet ft
yd Yards 0.914 meters m m meters 1.09 yards yd
mi Miles 1.61 kilometers km km kilometers 0.621 miles mi
AREA AREA
in2 square inches 645.2 square millimeters mm2 mm2 Square millimeters 0.0016 square inches in2
ft2 square feet 0.093 square meters m2 m2 Square meters 10.764 square feet ft2
yd2 square yards 0.836 square meters m2 m2 Square meters 1.195 square yards yd2
ac Acres 0.405 hectares ha ha hectares 2.47 acres ac
mi2 square miles 2.59 square kilometers km2 km2 Square kilometers 0.386 square miles mi2
VOLUME VOLUME
fl oz fluid ounces 29.57 milliliters mL mL milliliters 0.034 fluid ounces fl oz
gal Gallons 3.785 liters L L liters 0.264 gallons gal
ft3 cubic feet 0.028 cubic meters m3 m3 Cubic meters 35.315 cubic feet ft3
yd3 cubic yards 0.765 cubic meters m3 m3 Cubic meters 1.308 cubic yards yd3
NOTE: Volumes greater than 1000L shall be shown in m3.
MASS MASS
oz Ounces 28.35 grams g g grams 0.035 ounces oz
lb Pounds 0.454 kilograms kg kg kilograms 2.205 pounds lb
T short tons (2000lb) 0.907 megagrams
(or “metric ton”)
mg
(or “t”)
Mg megagrams
(or “metric ton”)
1.102 short tons (2000lb) T
TEMPERATURE (exact) TEMPERATURE (exact)
ºF Fahrenheit
temperature
5(F-32)/9
or (F-32)/1.8
Celsius temperature ºC ºC Celsius temperature 1.8C + 32 Fahrenheit
temperature
ºF
ILLUMINATION ILLUMINATION
fc foot candles 10.76 lux lx lx lux 0.0929 foot-candles fc
fl foot-Lamberts 3.426 candela/m2 cd/m2 cd/m2 candela/m2 0.2919 foot-Lamberts fl
FORCE AND PRESSURE OR STRESS FORCE AND PRESSURE OR STRESS
lbf Poundforce 4.45 newtons N N newtons 0.225 poundforce lbf
lbf/in2 poundforce per
square inch
6.89 kilopascals kPa kPa kilopascals 0.145 poundforce per
square inch
lbf/in2
SI is the symbol for the International System of Units. Appropriate rounding should be made to comply with Section 4 of ASTM E380
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................1
ADOT CYCLE TIME ANALYSIS ...................................................................1
BENCHMARKING STUDY WITH OTHER STATE
DEPARTMENTS OF TRANSPORTATION.............................................2
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................2
INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................5
ADOT CYCLE TIME ANALYSIS...........................................................................7
CYCLE TIME MEASURES..............................................................................7
SPECIFIC ANALYSIS STEPS..........................................................................9
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS..............................................................................10
DATA LIMITATIONS ON CYCLE TIME RESULTS..................................19
COMPARISON OF PROJECTS BASED ON ENGINEERING
CONSULTANTS......................................................................................20
BENCHMARKING STUDY WITH OTHER STATE
DEPARTMENTS OF TRANSPORTATION..................................................21
APPROACH.....................................................................................................21
RESULTS.........................................................................................................22
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................27
CONCLUSIONS ..............................................................................................27
RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................................................29
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Bridge Projects – Bid Award Value, and Days Between Scoping Request and
Project Advertisement (May 2001–April 2002) ....................................................... 11
Figure 2: Bridge Projects – Bid Award Value, and Days Between First Date of Project
Charges and Advertisement Date (May 2001–April 2002) ...................................... 12
Figure 3: District Minor/Minor Projects – Bid Award Value, and Days Between Scoping
Request and Project Advertisement (May 2001–April 2002)................................... 13
Figure 4: District Minor/Minor Projects – Bid Award Value, and Days Between First
Date of Project Charges and Advertisement Date (May 2001–April 2002)............. 14
Figure 5 : Major Projects – Bid Award Value, and Days Between Scoping Request and
Project Advertisement (May 2001–April 2002) ....................................................... 15
Figure 6: Major Projects – Bid Award Value, and Days Between First Date of Project
Charges and Advertisement Date (May 2001–April 2002) ...................................... 16
Figure 7: Pavement Preservation Projects – Bid Award Value, and Days Between
Scoping Request and Project Advertisement (May 2001–April 2002) .................... 17
Figure 8: Pavement Preservation Projects – Bid Award Value, and Days Between First
Date of Project Charges and Advertisement Date .................................................... 18
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Data for Figure 1................................................................................................. 11
Table 2: Data for Figure 2................................................................................................. 12
Table 3: Data for Figure 3................................................................................................. 13
Table 4: Data for Figure 4................................................................................................. 14
Table 5: Data for Figure 5................................................................................................. 15
Table 6: Data for Figure 6................................................................................................. 16
Table 7: Data for Figure 7................................................................................................. 17
Table 8: Data for Figure 8................................................................................................. 18
Table 9: Effect of Using the Same Engineering Consultant Firm on Project Design, Based
on Date of Project Request ....................................................................................... 20
Table 10: Effect of Using the Same Engineering Consultant Firm on Project Design,
Based on Date of Initial Expenditure........................................................................ 20
Table 11: ADOT Cycle Time Compared to Other States (Average Number of Days) .... 22
Table 12: Project Duration, 1997–2001............................................................................ 23
Table 13: Letting Date Adjustment, 1997–2001............................................................... 23
Table 14: Project Duration by Type of Project................................................................. 24
Table 15: Project Duration and Value by Type of Project................................................ 24
Table 16: Project Duration by Type of Project................................................................. 25
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents the results of an analysis to establish baseline measures of project
development cycle times at the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT). It also
presents a benchmarking study that surveyed cycle times in other states; the study was
used to compare ADOT cycle times to a national standard. This report closes with the
conclusions from the cycle time analysis and recommendations for ADOT to achieve best
practice in its management of project delivery cycle times.
ADOT CYCLE TIME ANALYSIS
The general approach to identifying and calculating cycle time used data drawn from
three separate databases of project information at ADOT: the Priority Programming
System (PPS), the Primavera Project Planner (P3), and Advantage, which is ADOT’s
financial management system.
Based on the information available, the following measures were calculated as indicators
of cycle times:
• Number of days between the start of scoping and the bid advertisement.
• Number of days between the date when a scoping document was requested
and the bid advertisement date.
• Number of days between the first charges made against the project and the
date it was advertised for construction.
Of the 17 different types of projects categorized by ADOT, the following five were
chosen for analysis: Bridge, District Minor (those funded from district lump sum sub-program
accounts), Major (more than $3 million), Minor (less than $2 million), and
Pavement Preservation.
Findings are somewhat limited in applicability because:
• Cycle time measurements are skewed by unrecorded work stoppages.
• Information was collected from three distinct databases, and these databases
have little connection with each other.
• More than 50 percent of the projects in the study population were not
included in the analysis because of lack of data items required to compute the
indicators.
• ADOT district offices provided cost estimates, and supplemented project
award values and dates on some projects. Several of the selected projects did
not have data for the amount awarded for the winning bid.
2
BENCHMARKING STUDY WITH OTHER STATE DEPARTMENTS OF
TRANSPORTATION
To perform a benchmarking study with other state departments of transportation,
representatives from the following organizations were contacted:
• Massachusetts Highway Department (MassHighway).
• Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT).
• Montana Department of Transportation (MDT).
• Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT).
• New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT).
• New Mexico Department of Transportation (NMDOT).
• Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT).
• Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT).
These representatives were queried as to whether their agencies had conducted cycle time
analysis and, if so, whether they had data available. In addition, this study relied on
experience that Dye Management Group, Inc. has accumulated in conducting
preconstruction analysis on past projects.
When looking at benchmarking data, it is important to remember that the definitions of
start and end vary between states, projects are categorized according to different
definitions in different states, and the time period covered varies between states.
We found that a majority of state departments of transportation do not keep track of
project cycle time. Many of the states re-baseline projects; that is, when delays arise, the
original schedule is shifted out to compensate for the delay. Under this procedure, project
start dates are not maintained, so determining the actual cycle times is impossible.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Conclusions
Following are the conclusions based on the results of the cycle time analysis:
• There is some indication that ADOT’s more complex projects are not taking
longer than similar projects in other states; however, pavement preservation
projects are taking longer.
3
• Rework is a major factor in delay. Rework results from poor communication,
lack of district involvement early in the design phase, limited ability to “lock
in” scope changes due to the permitting process, and lack of early quality
control to identify issues.
• Environmental and right-of-way activities could start earlier. Best practice
analysis indicates that other states are starting environmental and right-of-way
activities earlier in the process.
• There is not enough standardization of project management procedures,
approaches, and designs. Best practices are moving towards more
standardization.
• There is a lag between pre-design and design. The time between identification
of a project need and the beginning of design work adds to cycle time.
Recommendations
The recommendations outlined below are based on the research performed through the
cycle time analysis and on information developed for the best project management
practices study:
• Monitor and report project cycle time. This requires the establishment of an
agreed measure of cycle time. Accurate cycle time data make it possible to
identify trends and provide opportunities for improvement.
• Establish project duration standards by project type.
• Address the disconnect between the scoping process and design. This can be
done in one of the following two ways:
• Option 1. Make project managers responsible for scoping using the
pre-design group expertise as a technical resource.
• Option 2. Reengineer the pre-design and scoping processes.
• Establish a cycle time baseline and an agenda for action to reduce cycle time.
• Identify and address bottlenecks. Bottlenecks are often caused by local
government agreements, approval of consultant work scopes, and final plan
checking processes. Work groups can be convened to identify process
bottlenecks.
4
5
INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of an analysis to establish baseline measures of project
development cycle times at ADOT. It also presents a benchmarking study that surveyed
the cycle times at other states to compare these with the existing cycle times at ADOT.
The document closes with conclusions from the analysis and recommendations for
ADOT to move forward in achieving best practices in project cycle time management.
The first section contains a discussion of actual cycle times at ADOT. The analysis
focused on determining the number of days between the time that projects are scoped
during pre-design to the time they are actually advertised for bidding.
The second section contains a benchmarking study that examines the cycle times in other
states to determine where ADOT fits into the national spectrum of project delivery. The
benchmarking study looked at seven states. Based on a close analysis of the available
data, four of these states were selected for a more detailed study in order to furnish a
benchmarking standard.
The third section contains the cycle time analysis conclusions and recommendations. The
conclusions explain how well ADOT is doing compared to nationwide cycle times. The
recommendations point to a direction for ADOT to take in improving cycle times for
project delivery.
6
7
ADOT CYCLE TIME ANALYSIS
This section presents the results of an analysis to establish baseline measures of project
development cycle times at ADOT. Specifically, these measures show how many days
pass between the date projects are scoped during pre-design and the date they are
advertised for bidding to construct, and between the date initial work is charged by
ADOT and the date this work is advertised for bidding to construct. The analysis
excluded some project types, including MAG Life Cycle projects.
The general approach to identifying and calculating cycle time measurements of
construction projects involved the following steps:
• Analyze- available databases including the P3 and the PPS.
• Acquire- a copy of the data dictionary for the PPS database.
• Evaluate- data fields and determined which fields were most useful to use for
conducting the analysis.
• Request that ADOT run a query of the PPS database for a specific set of
projects over a specific period.
• Work with the project scheduling office to derive data from ADOT’s
financial management system (Advantage) regarding the day work began.
• Calculate cycle times for five project category types.
CYCLE TIME MEASURES
As part of the initial assessment and data collection efforts for this analysis, the following
measures were suggested for identifying the cycle times for development and delivery of
projects prior to construction:
• Number of days between completion of pre-design work and letting (the time
when the design consultant is under contract).
• Number of days between a project entering the program and letting.
• Number of days between expenditure charged to the project (once in the
program) and letting.
8
Three separate databases of project information at ADOT were utilized to determine
these measures:
• Priority Programming System (PPS) – Maintains project activity information
for providing project status that is useful for management and for the public
through the ADOT Web site.
• Primavera Project Planner (P3) – ADOT’s project scheduling system for
maintaining the schedule of milestones and activities associated with
individual projects. The data provided from P3 only indicated when the
schedule for each project was entered into the system, not when activities
related to project cycle time occurred.
• Advantage – ADOT’s financial management system for tracking labor and
material expenditures is useful for identifying when work was completed on
projects. Data on when expenditures for specific job functions are charged
against projects, are maintained within the system.
Based on the information available and collected from these systems, the following
measures were calculated as indicators of cycle time:
• Number of days between the date scoping began on a project and the date it
was advertised for construction.
• Number of days between the date the project was requested and the bid
advertisement date as recorded in the PPS database.
• Number of days between the date on which expenditure was first charged to a
programmed project and the date it was advertised for construction.
Measurement Issue
The approach to measuring cycle time once projects are in the 5-Year Program does not
address an issue raised at the outset of this project: projects have entered and left the
program, or have been combined, increasing cycle time. Our data use, as the starting
point, the first charges that were incurred against the project identification number in the
PPS database for the project that was advertised. Without tracking backwards
individually for projects, we were unable to deal with situations in which projects were
combined for letting, entered the 5-Year Program under one number, dropped out, and
then re-entered.
9
SPECIFIC ANALYSIS STEPS
The specific approach for collecting and analyzing project delivery data involved the
following:
1. Collecting project activity data using ADOT’s PPS data warehouse for a
sample of projects let between May 1, 2001, and April 30, 2002. The number
of projects available totaled 167. Project activity data that were chosen
included the following key fields:
• TRACS Number: The data field used for tracking the status of an individual
project.
• Project ID: The unique identification number used for managing and tracking
capital projects.
• Project Category: The type of project as defined by ADOT. ADOT has
categorized 17 different types of projects. Of these, the following project
types were included:
• Bridge – This type of project involves roadway engineering work that
is specific to bridges and bridge structures, such as deck repairs and
replacements, and joint repairs, among others.
• District Minor – This type of project includes projects specifically
funded out of district lump sum sub-program accounts. Projects are
selected by the district.
• Major – This type of project provides significant capacity
improvements and includes other significant projects, such as traffic
interchanges, climbing/passing lanes, and ITS projects. Values of
projects are typically greater than $3 million.
• Minor – Similar to major projects, but project values are generally
less than $2 million.
• Pavement Preservation – This type of project involves work to
preserve or recondition roadway surfaces. The type of work is
generally limited to removal and replacement, mill and replacement,
overlay, or the sealing of pavement surfaces.
2. Requesting that ADOT staff query data within the financial management
system to determine when the first labor or material charges were recorded for
individual projects. Initial Expenditure, the date defined as the point when a
project is considered programmed and entered into the 5-Year Program, was
collected for each project in this analysis.
10
3. Calculating the number of days between the date requested and the bid
advertisement date, and between initial expenditure and the bid advertisement
date.
4. Reviewing and assessing data from 167 projects:
• Of these 167 projects, 54 projects with the following category types were
eliminated: Intermediate, MAG Life Cycle, Roadside Improvement, Safety,
State Park Roads, and Statewide Program. These projects were excluded
because they do not lend themselves well to comparison with other states. Of
the remaining 113, those projects without data for Date Requested or Initial
Expenditure were eliminated from the analysis. Once all projects with
insufficient data were cut from the data group, there remained:
• Forty projects available for the cycle time measure from date
requested to bid advertisement date.
• Ninety-five projects available for the cycle time measure from date of
initial expenditure to bid advertisement date.
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
The figures and tables below illustrate the projects with valid data present in the PPS and
financial management system that yielded calculated results for the two performance
measures for cycle time.
11
Bridge Projects
Figure 1 illustrates the length of project development, in days, between the dates scoping
was requested for six bridge projects and the dates the projects were advertised for
construction. The figure lists the projects by longest to shortest duration. In addition, the
figure shows the value of the bid award for each of the six projects. Table 1 contains the
data for Figure 1.
Figure 1: Bridge Projects – Bid Award Value, and Days Between Scoping Request
and Project Advertisement (May 2001–April 2002)
Table 1: Data for Figure 1
Project ID Duration (days) Bid Award ($000s)
4742 2,201 $91
4572 1,830 $1,611
5121 1,618 $5,501
9284 671 $3,423
10826 32 $404
10827 15 $69
12
Figure 2 illustrates the length of project development, in days, between the dates labor or
material charges accrued to 16 projects (from ADOT’s Advantage system) and the dates
the projects were advertised for construction. It was possible to calculate the length of
project development for 16 projects. The figure shows the projects by longest to shortest
duration. In addition, the figure shows the value of the bid award for the 16 projects.
Table 2 contains the data for Figure 2.
Figure 2: Bridge Projects – Bid Award Value, and Days Between First Date of
Project Charges and Advertisement Date (May 2001–April 2002)
Table 2: Data for Figure 2
Project ID Duration
(days)
Bid Award
($000s) Project ID Duration
(days)
Bid Award
($000s)
5121 2,513 $5,501 9284 380 $3,423
7972 1,789 $3,377 10190 368 $440
4572 1,649 $1,611 10193 334 $125
4997 1,323 $179 10200 313 $155
4742 820 $91 10790 265 $255
10135 705 $2,200 10789 176 $49
10188 649 $497 10826 60 $404
10205 406 $465 10827 43 $69
13
District Minor and Minor Projects
Figure 3 illustrates the length of project development, in days, between the dates scoping
was requested for six District Minor and Minor projects and the dates the projects were
advertised for construction. The figure lists the projects by longest to shortest duration. In
addition, the figure shows the value of the bid award for each of the six projects. Table 3
contains the data for Figure 3.
Figure 3: District Minor/Minor Projects – Bid Award Value, and Days Between
Scoping Request and Project Advertisement (May 2001–April 2002)
Table 3: Data for Figure 3
Project ID Duration
(days)
Bid Award
($000s) Project ID Duration
(days)
Bid Award
($000s)
4738 2,201 $482 8655 955 $652
4115 1,916 $1,932 9195 923 $794
4111 1,861 $156 8725 920 $652
4107 1,747 $3,344 9197 876 $62
8313 1,362 $400 9315 854 $180
8314 1,362 $400 9056 694 $503
4121 1,217 $300 10333 600 $757
8089 1,202 $450 10265 569 $1,293
8100 1,187 $1,070 10348 326 $267
8736 1,186 $400 10321 272 $250
8574 992 $213 10775 186 $389
14
Figure 4 illustrates the length of project development, in days, between the date labor or
material charges accrued to the 28 District Minor and Minor projects (from ADOT’s
Advantage system) and the date the projects were advertised for construction. The figure
lists the projects by longest to shortest duration. In addition, the figure shows the value of
the bid award for the 28 projects. Table 4 contains the data for Figure 4.
Figure 4: District Minor/Minor Projects – Bid Award Value, and Days Between
First Date of Project Charges and Advertisement Date (May 2001–April 2002)
Table 4: Data for Figure 4
Project ID Duration
(days)
Bid Award
($000s) Project ID Duration
(days)
Bid Award
($000s)
4111 1,637 $156 9195 712 $794
4107 1,401 $3,344 4100 686 $265
4738 1,323 $482 9197 651 $62
4115 1,218 $1,932 9056 615 $503
10791 1,032 $207 10456 615 $200
4121 986 $300 10489 615 $200
8089 982 $450 10676 511 $247
8100 973 $1,070 10285 372 $1,293
8736 955 $400 10321 222 $250
8574 891 $213 10333 207 $757
9315 843 $180 10348 178 $267
8655 785 $652 10795 82 $377
8725 785 $652 10775 29 $389
10452 771 $557 10940 29 $389
15
Major Projects
Figure 5 illustrates the length of project development, in days, between the dates scoping
was requested for a nine Major projects and the dates the projects were advertised for
construction. . The figure lists the projects by longest to shortest duration. In addition, the
figure shows the value of the bid award for each of the nine projects. Table 5 contains the
data for Figure 5.
Figure 5: Major Projects – Bid Award Value, and Days Between Scoping Request
and Project Advertisement (May 2001–April 2002)
Table 5: Data for Figure 5
Project ID Duration
(days)
Bid Award
($000s) Project ID Duration
(days)
Bid Award
($000s)
5080 1,830 $16,000 7981 1,499 $12,930
4640 1,757 $3,344 5064 510 $9,727
4574 1,723 $4,525 10170 449 $7,558
2156 1,554 $11,656 10353 394 $900
7700 1,518 $1,154
16
Figure 6 illustrates the length of project development, in days, between the dates scoping
was requested for 13 Major projects and the dates the projects were advertised for
construction. The figure lists the projects by longest to shortest duration. In addition, the
figure shows the value of the bid award for each of the 13 projects. Table 6 contains the
data for Figure 6.
Figure 6: Major Projects – Bid Award Value, and Days Between First Date of
Project Charges and Advertisement Date (May 2001–April 2002)
Table 6: Data for Figure 6
Project ID Duration
(days)
Bid Award
($000s) Project ID Duration
(days)
Bid Award
($000s)
1588 2,284 $7,796 4574 1,400 $4,525
7981 2,283 $12,930 2152 1,246 $12,625
1432 1,883 $6,295 595 1,207 $7,000
621 1,875 $1,330 2156 1,075 $11,656
5080 1,744 $16,000 770 986 $1,154
594 1,547 $2,260 602 511 $13,117
3631 1,440 $32,500
17
Pavement Preservation Projects
Figure 7 illustrates the length of project development, in days, between the dates scoping
was requested for three Pavement Preservation projects and the dates the projects were
advertised for construction. It was possible to calculate the length of project development
for only three Pavement Preservation projects. The figure lists the projects by longest to
shortest duration. In addition, the figure shows the value of the bid award for each of the
three projects. Table 7 contains the data for Figure 7.
Figure 7: Pavement Preservation Projects – Bid Award Value, and Days Between
Scoping Request and Project Advertisement (May 2001–April 2002)
Table 7: Data for Figure 7
Project ID Duration (days) Bid Award ($000s)
10083 811 $1,512
10089 708 $2,645
10158 671 $2,189
18
Figure 8 illustrates the length of project development, in days, between the dates scoping
was requested 38 Pavement Preservation projects and the dates the projects were
advertised for construction. It was possible to calculate the length of project development
for. The figure lists the projects by longest to shortest duration. In addition, the figure
shows the value of the bid award for each of the 38 projects. Table 8 contains the data for
Figure 8.
Figure 8: Pavement Preservation Projects – Bid Award Value, and Days Between
First Date of Project Charges and Advertisement Date
Table 8: Data for Figure 8
Project ID Duration
(days)
Bid Award
($000s) Project ID Duration
(days)
Bid Award
($000s)
8007 1,257 $1,542 8902 886 $898
7990 1,140 $3,564 8928 880 $406
8912 1,106 $1,422 8920 869 $519
7998 1,104 $3,377 8926 839 $1,846
8910 1,089 $1,448 8932 828 $2,074
8906 1,071 $1,949 8955 811 $900
8895 1,016 $1,098 8937 771 $630
8942 1,007 $2,654 8944 734 $2,611
10089 1,000 $2,645 8917 700 $1,157
8905 999 $4,577 10158 629 $2,189
8943 992 $2,611 10083 593 $1,512
8916 982 $1,265 8936 586 $434
8923 974 $1,268 8913 584 $0
7993 965 $556 8026 547 $709
8934 947 $5,550 8931 453 $158
8911 938 $2,260 10331 448 $506
8924 938 $1,330 7994 334 $455
8899 896 $2,632 10398 309 $2,654
8901 891 $1,285 8009 89 $1,028
19
DATA LIMITATIONS ON CYCLE TIME RESULTS
The following points are highlighted regarding the data and results of the cycle time
measures from ADOT’s databases:
• Cycle time measurements were skewed by unrecorded project work
stoppages.
The cycle time measurements only took into account when the work for an
overall phase of project delivery began and when it ended. However, on
many projects, work stoppages occurred. If the durations of these
downtimes were eliminated from the analysis, then the overall cycle times
for projects would decrease. However, collection of the information
necessary to accomplish this more refined approach would itself require an
extensive period.
• Information was collected from three distinct databases.
As previously stated, three databases were utilized for this analysis.
During the effort, it was discovered that these databases do not have any
direct connection; data in one must be copied, then transferred or manually
entered into the others. In some cases, initial expenditure data for the
design phase were used due to lack of data for expenditures during the
planning phase.
• More than 50 percent of the projects in the sample group were not included in
the analysis.
Out of 167 projects let between May 2001 and April 2002, 113 were of the
five category types included in the analysis. Of these 113, only 95 projects
were included for the initial expenditure/bid date measure; the initial
expenditure data field was empty for the remaining 18. Only 40 projects
could be included for the date requested/bid date measure due to the lack
of information. Projects that were not used included those for which the
date requested data field was empty.
• ADOT district offices provided cost estimates, and supplemented project
award values and dates on some projects.
Data for the amount awarded for the winning bid was not available for
several of the selected projects. In these cases, the PPS database field for
the ADOT district-estimated project cost was used. If no cost information
was available for a project, the project was eliminated from the analysis.
20
COMPARISON OF PROJECTS BASED ON ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
For each of the projects in the sample groups, the primary engineering consultants
contracted to perform the work during the scoping and design phases were identified. A
comparison among projects that had the same consultant for both scoping and design
phases was completed. Overall, the analysis indicates that using the same consultant can
reduce cycle time by more than 100 days.
Table 9 below presents the results based on date of project request. Of the 40 projects in
the sample pool with valid data for date-of-project request, the consultant data for 11
projects could be determined; all of these were District Minor projects. Of these, five had
the same consultant for both phases; the other six had different firms for each phase. The
results show that using the same consultant for both scoping and design phases reduced
cycle time, on average, by more than 100 days.
Table 9: Effect of Using the Same Engineering Consultant Firm on Project Design,
Based on Date of Project Request
Same Consultant Different Consultant
Project Category No. Average
Duration
Total
Value* No. Average
Duration
Total
Value*
Delta
District Minor 5 800 $2,426 6 907 $3,532 -107
Source: ADOT, Dye Management Group, Inc. analysis.
Note (*): in millions.
Table 10 below presents the results based on date of initial expenditure. Of the 95
projects in the sample pool with valid data for date of initial expenditure, the consultant
data for 27 projects were identified. For Bridge projects, using the same consultant for
both phases reduced cycle time, on average, by 515 days. Cycle time for District Minor
projects with the same consultant was almost 160 days shorter than for similar projects
with different consultants. Due to insufficient data on Major projects and on Pavement
Preservation projects, conclusions could not be made.
Table 10: Effect of Using the Same Engineering Consultant Firm on Project Design,
Based on Date of Initial Expenditure
Same Consultant Different Consultant
Project Category No. Average
Duration
Total
Value* No. Average
Duration
Total
Value*
Delta
Bridge 3 338 $720 4 853 $2,093 -515
District Minor 3 514 $1,123 9 672 $4,436 -158
Major 1 2,283 $12,930 1 1,400 $4,525 883
Pavement Preservation 1 448 $506 5 955 $11,693 -507
Overall 8 661 $15,279 19 777 $22,747 -116
Source: ADOT, Dye Management Group, Inc. analysis.
Note (*): in millions.
21
BENCHMARKING STUDY WITH OTHER STATE
DEPARTMENTS OF TRANSPORTATION
The purpose of the benchmarking study was to gain comparative data on project cycle
times in other states.
APPROACH
The approach to collecting benchmark data included the following:
• Leveraging the ADOT best project management practices survey.
The best practices survey, performed as part of the ADOT research project
(SPR-511), evaluating project management practices, was used to obtain
data. Questions were asked regarding cycle time data and measurement.
Representatives of the following organizations were interviewed by
telephone:
• Massachusetts Highway Department (MassHighway).
• Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT).
• Montana Department of Transportation (MDT).
• Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT).
• New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT).
• New Mexico Department of Transportation (NMDOT).
• Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT).
• Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT).
Telephone interviews were conducted in order to identify whether these
states had assembled cycle time data. Followup calls were made to
complete any required data.
• Analyzing data sets from other Dye Management Group, Inc. studies.
Due to the difficulty encountered in deriving cycle time data, we also
conducted analysis from data sets that Dye Management Group, Inc. had
assembled on preconstruction reviews for other states.
22
RESULTS
Most of the benchmark states do not maintain and report project cycle time data for
projects prior to construction. In a limited number of cases, states have conducted special
studies to collect that data. Some of the responding states indicated that they could not
allocate time to produce an ad hoc report for our research purposes. A frequent question
respondents asked was, “What is the start point?” In a number of states, projects enter
and leave the 5-Year Program; therefore, project cycle time is difficult to compute.
Despite these limitations, we were able to generate some illustrative comparison data
from a few states. Caution should be taken in making comparisons: 1) the definitions of
start and end in the data obtained vary between the states, 2) projects are categorized
according to different definitions in different states, and 3) the period covered varies
between the states. Table 11 presents ADOT cycle time compared to other states.
Table 11: ADOT Cycle Time Compared to Other States (Average Number of Days)
Arizona (median
number of days) Montana Minnesota
Project Category
Scoping to
Award
Expenditure
to Award
Preconstruction
Project Delivery*
Project
Duration**
Letting
Adjustments***
Major Construction 1,518 1,440 2,555 1,438 827
Restoration/Rehabilitation 1,533
Reconstruction 1,686 568
Reconditioning 854 247
Resurfacing 1,022 552 46
Pavement Preservation 889
Road Repair 157 29
Bridge 1,145 393 1,314
Bridge Replacement 1,854 1,251
Bridge Improvement 469 141
District Minor 974 742
Safety 949 596 32
Rest Area/Beautification 556 277
Source: ADOT, MDT, Mn/DOT, MDOT, Dye Management Group, Inc. analysis.
Note (*): A study of preconstruction project delivery at MDT was completed in 2000. Analysis conducted
as part of the study included evaluating the average duration between the preliminary field review and bid
ready date for several types of projects. Data were collected and analyzed for projects delivered in the
period from 1997 through 2000.
Note (**): Project Duration refers to the period from the end of the first project activity to the construction
letting. Data refer to projects from January 1, 1997, through December 31, 2001.
Note (***): Letting Adjustments refer to the difference in elapsed time between the date a project was
originally programmed for letting and when it was actually let. Data refer to projects from January 1,
1997, through December 31, 2001.
23
Minnesota Department of Transportation
Table 12 and Table 13 summarize data on project duration and letting adjustment for
Minnesota. For our purposes, project duration refers to the period from the end of the
first project activity to the construction letting. Letting date adjustment refers to the
difference in elapsed time between the date a project was originally programmed for
letting and when it was actually let.
Table 12: Project Duration, 1997–2001
Project Category Total
Projects
Average
Duration (days)
Standard
Deviation*
Average Duration
(Years)
Major Construction 137 1,438 748.07 3.94
Reconstruction 70 1,686 621.57 4.62
Reconditioning 121 854 487.61 2.34
Resurfacing 279 552 296.56 1.51
Road Repair 211 157 133.91 0.43
Bridge Replacement 99 1,854 925.26 5.08
Bridge Improvement 96 469 313.72 1.28
Safety 121 596 377.14 1.63
Rest Area/Beautification 51 556 390.60 1.52
Total 1,185
Average Days 791
Average Years 2.16
Source: Mn/DOT, Dye Management Group, Inc. analysis.
Note (*): For example, if the average duration is 1,000 days and the standard deviation is 200, we would
have reasonable confidence that the project durations would fall between 800 and 1,200 days.
Table 13: Letting Date Adjustment, 1997–2001
Project Category Total
Projects
Average
Duration (days)
Standard
Deviation*
Average Duration
(Years)
Major Construction 137 827 570.00 2.27
Reconstruction 70 568 391.13 1.56
Reconditioning 121 247 338.65 0.68
Resurfacing 279 46 232.33 0.13
Road Repair 211 29 144.22 0.08
Bridge Replacement 99 1251 841.26 3.43
Bridge Improvement 96 141 269.26 0.38
Safety 121 32 492.07 0.09
Rest Area/Beautification 51 277 250.23 0.76
Total 1,185
Average Days 324
Average Years 0.89
Source: Mn/DOT, Dye Management Group, Inc. analysis.
Note (*): For example, if the average duration is 1,000 days and the standard deviation is 200, we would
have reasonable confidence that the project durations would fall between 800 and 1,200 days.
24
Montana Department of Transportation
A study of preconstruction project delivery at the MDT was completed in 2000. Analysis
conducted as part of the study included evaluating the average duration between the
preliminary field review and the bid ready date for several types of projects. Data (as
shown in Table 14) was collected and analyzed for projects delivered in the period from
1997 through 2000. This is a point after the project is in the 5-Year Program and most
likely a little later in the project life cycle than the expenditure to award measure used in
our analysis of ADOT project cycle time.
Table 14: Project Duration by Type of Project
Project Category Duration (years) Duration* (days)
New Construction/
Rehabilitation
7.0 2,555
Restoration/Rehabilitation 4.2 1,533
Resurfacing/Minor Widening 2.8 1,022
Bridge 3.6 1,314
Safety/Traffic 2.6 949
Overall 4.0 1,460
Note (*): Calculated from cycle time duration in years.
Michigan Department of Transportation
Michigan is one of only a few states surveyed that has monitored and kept track of cycle
time. Table 15 presents project cycle durations, between the scoping date and the project
letting date, for projects let between 1998 and 2001.
Table 15: Project Duration and Value by Type of Project
Project Category Projects Duration
(days)
Average Value
Bridge 62 449 $2,522,000
Major 66 595 $8,224,000
Minor 115 397 $862,000
Pavement Preservation 15 427 $7,568,000
New Jersey Department of Transportation
NJDOT, in conjunction with the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO), recently completed a major survey of state
departments of transportation and their management of cycle time. Results are still
pending, with a report to AASHTO due in January or February.
The work in progress was discussed with the researchers. A key finding from their work,
which was confirmed by ADOT’s best practices survey, is that the majority of state
departments of transportation do not keep track of project cycle time. Projects are
managed; however, a variety of issues create delays. Projects are re-baselined, a process
25
in which the original schedule is shifted out to compensate for the delay. Under this
procedure, project start dates are not maintained, so determining the actual cycle times is
impossible.
For New Jersey, project cycle times can be described in terms of the relative complexity
of a project, including requirements for environmental impact statements or major utility
realignment work. The data in Table 16 indicate the average design cycle times for
projects let by NJDOT. These data are not directly comparable to our ADOT data.
Table 16: Project Duration by Type of Project
Type of Project Duration (years) Duration* (days)
Requiring an EIS 6.0 1,460
Requiring an EA 5.5 2,008
Complex (Significant
Right-of-Way)
4.5 1,643
Complex (Significant
Utility Relocation)
4.0 1,460
Simple Project 2.0 730
Note (*): Calculated from cycle time duration in years.
26
27
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Following are the conclusions based on the results of the cycle time analysis:
• There is some indication that ADOT’s more complex projects are not
taking longer than projects in other states; however, pavement
preservation is taking longer.
Although there are limitations in the state-to-state data used for
comparisons, the results reported indicate that more complex ADOT
projects, major construction projects, and bridge projects are not generally
taking longer than similar projects in other states. In contrast, pavement
preservation projects appear to be taking longer.
• Rework is a major factor in delay.
Interview results indicate that rework increases cycle time and is caused
by:
• Poor communication among the parties involved in the pre-design and
design processes.
• Lack of district involvement until later stages of design.
• Limited control mechanism to “lock in” scope and design at an early
stage.
• Changes due to the permitting process.
• Quality control process not focused on early stages of the design
process.
• Quality problems cause by schedule requirements.
• Environmental and right-of-way activities could start earlier.
Although this study did not conduct a business process analysis, technical
staff indicated that due to frequent project changes, especially with regard
to scope, they are reluctant to begin right-of-way work until scope issues
are resolved. Best practices analysis results indicate that, in general, states
have worked on conducting environmental and right-of-way activities
earlier in the process and in parallel with other design activities. Interviews
indicate:
28
• Environmental and right-of-way needs should be identified and tasks
should be performed earlier in the process.
• Right-of-way staff are reluctant to do tasks earlier due to the
experience of frequent changes.
• There is not enough standardization of project management procedures,
approaches, and designs.
The best project management practices study indicates that:
• There is no automation on repetitive projects.
• ADOT is not using standardized templates for designs.
• Not all project managers use the established process.
• Project managers/teams establish their own schedules and timelines for
the project.
This indicates that there is no basis or standard for acceptable cycle time
from which to manage project delivery. The following observations are
drawn from review of documentation and interviews:
• ADOT does not establish or manage project delivery based upon
work standards for activity duration by category of project.
• There is limited documentation of how long work “should take.”
• Management information on cycle time is limited.
• Management objectives and performance expectations are focused on
letting schedule accomplishments, not delivery time or cycle time.
• There is a lag between pre-design and design
The time between identification of a project need and the beginning of design
work adds to cycle time. The factors driving this include the following:
• Due to funding, prioritization, and other factors, there is a lag between
pre-design and inclusion of scoped projects in the program.
• When programmed, the conditions (environmental, real estate, traffic)
may have changed, requiring reexamination of the scope.
• Current funding constraints and underestimation of program costs
slow down delivery.
• Cycle time for District Minor projects may be longer due to additional
activities such as permitting.
29
RECOMMENDATIONS
The recommendations outlined below are based on the research performed as part of the
cycle time analysis and on information developed for the best project management
practices study.
Management Information and Accountability
The following recommendations address the paucity of management information and
organizational accountability for cycle time. They identify immediate actions that can be
readily instituted.
Recommendations addressing the broader need for improved management information
for program and project management purposes are not made here. They will be made in
the best project management practices report. In brief, the recommendations here address
the need for monitoring duration by major activity and by the start and finish dates. This
type of information will provide data from which to systematically reduce cycle time.
Following are the management information and accountability recommendations:
• Monitor and report project cycle time.
This requires establishing agreed measures of cycle time. Issues to be
resolved include determining a starting point; the end point could be set at
the time the project is “ready” to be advertised. It will be important to
account for situations in which projects enter the 5-Year Program, are not
designed, and then reenter later.
With a history of cycle time data, it will be possible to identify trends and
opportunities for improvement.
• Establish project duration standards by project type.
The intent is to establish some work standards for project duration. These
would need to be established by project type and by category of activity.
While there is variation across projects and there are arguments that can be
made about the difficulty of doing this, best practice analysis shows that
other states start their cycle time management from such data.
Delays Between the Planning, Pre-Design, STIP, and Design Processes
ADOT is confronted with a number of process and organizational issues that impact the
flow of a project from planning, through pre-design, into the 5-Year Program, and then
through the design process. The issues are broader than cycle time. They include ensuring
that the problem or need identified and addressed in planning is met through the pre-design
and design process. Each time a scope is revisited, delay and rework adversely
impact cycle time.
30
A specific cycle time delay is the apparent lag between scoping or pre-design and when
work starts on the project. The impact of this disconnect on ADOT is large. It also
impacts ADOT’s relationship with its customers and partners because the time from pre-design
to project completion is long. In addition, not all projects that go through the pre-design
process are included in the 5-Year Program in the year that the pre-design work is
done. The recommendation is to make solving this problem as priority.
Following is the recommendation for managing the delays between the planning, pre-design,
Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP), and design processes:
• Address the disparity between the scoping process and design.
Addressing the disparity between planning activities, pre-design, and
design offers a large opportunity for reducing cycle time. This study has
not undertaken a detailed process evaluation. Therefore, the
recommendation identifies options that will enable ADOT to address this
issue. These options are listed below:
• Option 1. Make project managers responsible for scoping using the
pre-design group expertise as a technical resource.
Under this action, project managers would have responsibility for
scoping. Implementation will need to address whether this should
include any scoping prior to inclusion in the 5-Year Program or
whether there should be a more detailed project scope definition once
the project is in the program.
• Option 2. Reengineer the pre-design and scoping processes.
This option could be performed in conjunction with other options.
Under this option, the current process would be reengineered. Ideas to
consider would be establishing a new project nomination or initial
scoping process (prior to the 5-Year Program). The objective would
be to reduce delay between scoping and design start.
Strengthened Project Management
Implementation of the recommendations from the best project management practices
study will position ADOT to reduce cycle time. These recommendations are designed to
improve ADOT’s overall management and delivery of projects from initiation through to
advertising. The recommendations address the policy, procedural, and organizational
changes necessary to improve project schedule management. With these
recommendations in place, ADOT will:
31
• Know how long projects should take and how long the duration of major
activities should be.
• Establish a duration (project cycle time) at the outset, and manage delivery to
that duration.
• Establish controls of scope and budget that will reduce adverse impacts on
schedule management. For example, if the project scope is locked in beyond a
certain point, then the amount of rework that causes schedule slippage would
be limited.
• Have greater project delivery standardization.
• Be able to have a baseline from which to identify cycle time reduction
opportunities.
Following is the recommendation for strengthened project management:
• Establish a cycle time baseline and an agenda for action to reduce cycle
time.
The recommendation is to establish a project cycle time baseline and, on
an ongoing basis, to identify opportunities for ensuring predictability of
cycle time and reducing project cycle time. These will include:
• Process improvements.
• The use of technology such as standard design templates to aid
designers.
• The use of alternative contracting approaches such as incentives or
disincentives designed to reduce construction cycle time.
• The use of multi-project resource loading analysis to identify and
manage bottlenecks that are caused by uneven workflow for
specialized units.
• Other initiatives.
Analysis and Action to Address Process Bottlenecks
Bottlenecks in the process arise because work planning by technical managers is difficult
due to weak scope management and limitations in the management information available.
In addition, ADOT does not balance work load across projects. With more disciplined
project management, especially scope management, ADOT will be able to identify and
address process bottlenecks.
32
Following is the recommendation for reducing process bottlenecks:
• Identify and address bottlenecks.
While our analysis did not quantify the impacts, the interview results and
conclusions drawn from assessment of ADOT’s current practices indicate
that there are likely a number of bottlenecks in the process that cause
delay. These include local government agreements, approval of consultant
work scopes, and the final plan checking process.
The recommendation can be implemented by convening work groups to
identify and address bottlenecks and their magnitude, and to assess the
actions that can be taken to reduce them.

Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.

Copyright to this resource is held by the creating agency and is provided here for educational purposes only. It may not be downloaded, reproduced or distributed in any format without written permission of the creating agency. Any attempt to circumvent the access controls placed on this file is a violation of United States and international copyright laws, and is subject to criminal prosecution.

ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION PROJECT
DELIVERY CYCLE TIME
ANALYSIS
Final Report 518
Prepared by:
David C. Rose
Dye Management Group, Inc.
City Center Bellevue, Suite 1700
500 108th Avenue NE
Bellevue, Washington 98004
October 2005
Prepared for:
Arizona Department of Transportation
206 South 17 Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
in cooperation with
the U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
DISCLAIMER
The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the facts
and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the
official views or policies of the Arizona Department of Transportation or the Federal
Highway Administration. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or
regulation. Trade or manufacturers' names which may appear herein are cited only because
they are considered essential to the objectives of the report. The U.S. Government and the
State of Arizona do not endorse products or manufacturers.
Technical Report Documentation Page
1. Report No.
FHWA-AZ-05-518
2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No.
5. Report Date
October 2005
4. Title and Subtitle
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PROJECT DELIVERY
CYCLE TIME ANALYSIS 6. Performing Organization Code
7. Authors
David C. Rose
8. Performing Organization Report No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No.
Dye Management Group, Inc.
City Center Bellevue, Suite 1700
500 108th Avenue NE
Bellevue, Washington 98004
11. Contract or Grant No.
SPR-PL-1(59) 518
13.Type of Report & Period Covered
FINAL
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address
Arizona Department of Transportation
206 S. 17th Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
14. Sponsoring Agency Code
15. Supplementary Notes
Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration
16. Abstract
The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) conducted research to quantify project delivery cycle time. The
purpose of this research was to compare ADOT with other state departments of transportation. This research
found that there are significant challenges in establishing measures of project delivery cycle time from data in
ADOT’s various information systems. These challenges limited the ability of the research to provide a meaningful
comparison with other states. The principal recommendation from the study was the need to determine
standardized procedures across all ADOT program areas for establishing project schedule baselines and for
recording information on accomplishments and project durations.
17. Key Words
Project delivery, project cycle time
18. Distribution Statement
Document is available to the U.S. public
through the National Technical
Information Service, Springfield,
Virginia, 22161
19. Security Classification
Unclassified
20. Security Classification
Unclassified
21. No. of Pages
36
22. Price
23. Registrant's Seal
SI* (MODERN METRIC) CONVERSION FACTORS
APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS FROM SI UNITS
Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol
LENGTH LENGTH
in Inches 25.4 millimeters mm mm millimeters 0.039 inches in
ft Feet 0.305 meters m m meters 3.28 feet ft
yd Yards 0.914 meters m m meters 1.09 yards yd
mi Miles 1.61 kilometers km km kilometers 0.621 miles mi
AREA AREA
in2 square inches 645.2 square millimeters mm2 mm2 Square millimeters 0.0016 square inches in2
ft2 square feet 0.093 square meters m2 m2 Square meters 10.764 square feet ft2
yd2 square yards 0.836 square meters m2 m2 Square meters 1.195 square yards yd2
ac Acres 0.405 hectares ha ha hectares 2.47 acres ac
mi2 square miles 2.59 square kilometers km2 km2 Square kilometers 0.386 square miles mi2
VOLUME VOLUME
fl oz fluid ounces 29.57 milliliters mL mL milliliters 0.034 fluid ounces fl oz
gal Gallons 3.785 liters L L liters 0.264 gallons gal
ft3 cubic feet 0.028 cubic meters m3 m3 Cubic meters 35.315 cubic feet ft3
yd3 cubic yards 0.765 cubic meters m3 m3 Cubic meters 1.308 cubic yards yd3
NOTE: Volumes greater than 1000L shall be shown in m3.
MASS MASS
oz Ounces 28.35 grams g g grams 0.035 ounces oz
lb Pounds 0.454 kilograms kg kg kilograms 2.205 pounds lb
T short tons (2000lb) 0.907 megagrams
(or “metric ton”)
mg
(or “t”)
Mg megagrams
(or “metric ton”)
1.102 short tons (2000lb) T
TEMPERATURE (exact) TEMPERATURE (exact)
ºF Fahrenheit
temperature
5(F-32)/9
or (F-32)/1.8
Celsius temperature ºC ºC Celsius temperature 1.8C + 32 Fahrenheit
temperature
ºF
ILLUMINATION ILLUMINATION
fc foot candles 10.76 lux lx lx lux 0.0929 foot-candles fc
fl foot-Lamberts 3.426 candela/m2 cd/m2 cd/m2 candela/m2 0.2919 foot-Lamberts fl
FORCE AND PRESSURE OR STRESS FORCE AND PRESSURE OR STRESS
lbf Poundforce 4.45 newtons N N newtons 0.225 poundforce lbf
lbf/in2 poundforce per
square inch
6.89 kilopascals kPa kPa kilopascals 0.145 poundforce per
square inch
lbf/in2
SI is the symbol for the International System of Units. Appropriate rounding should be made to comply with Section 4 of ASTM E380
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................1
ADOT CYCLE TIME ANALYSIS ...................................................................1
BENCHMARKING STUDY WITH OTHER STATE
DEPARTMENTS OF TRANSPORTATION.............................................2
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................2
INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................5
ADOT CYCLE TIME ANALYSIS...........................................................................7
CYCLE TIME MEASURES..............................................................................7
SPECIFIC ANALYSIS STEPS..........................................................................9
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS..............................................................................10
DATA LIMITATIONS ON CYCLE TIME RESULTS..................................19
COMPARISON OF PROJECTS BASED ON ENGINEERING
CONSULTANTS......................................................................................20
BENCHMARKING STUDY WITH OTHER STATE
DEPARTMENTS OF TRANSPORTATION..................................................21
APPROACH.....................................................................................................21
RESULTS.........................................................................................................22
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................27
CONCLUSIONS ..............................................................................................27
RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................................................29
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Bridge Projects – Bid Award Value, and Days Between Scoping Request and
Project Advertisement (May 2001–April 2002) ....................................................... 11
Figure 2: Bridge Projects – Bid Award Value, and Days Between First Date of Project
Charges and Advertisement Date (May 2001–April 2002) ...................................... 12
Figure 3: District Minor/Minor Projects – Bid Award Value, and Days Between Scoping
Request and Project Advertisement (May 2001–April 2002)................................... 13
Figure 4: District Minor/Minor Projects – Bid Award Value, and Days Between First
Date of Project Charges and Advertisement Date (May 2001–April 2002)............. 14
Figure 5 : Major Projects – Bid Award Value, and Days Between Scoping Request and
Project Advertisement (May 2001–April 2002) ....................................................... 15
Figure 6: Major Projects – Bid Award Value, and Days Between First Date of Project
Charges and Advertisement Date (May 2001–April 2002) ...................................... 16
Figure 7: Pavement Preservation Projects – Bid Award Value, and Days Between
Scoping Request and Project Advertisement (May 2001–April 2002) .................... 17
Figure 8: Pavement Preservation Projects – Bid Award Value, and Days Between First
Date of Project Charges and Advertisement Date .................................................... 18
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Data for Figure 1................................................................................................. 11
Table 2: Data for Figure 2................................................................................................. 12
Table 3: Data for Figure 3................................................................................................. 13
Table 4: Data for Figure 4................................................................................................. 14
Table 5: Data for Figure 5................................................................................................. 15
Table 6: Data for Figure 6................................................................................................. 16
Table 7: Data for Figure 7................................................................................................. 17
Table 8: Data for Figure 8................................................................................................. 18
Table 9: Effect of Using the Same Engineering Consultant Firm on Project Design, Based
on Date of Project Request ....................................................................................... 20
Table 10: Effect of Using the Same Engineering Consultant Firm on Project Design,
Based on Date of Initial Expenditure........................................................................ 20
Table 11: ADOT Cycle Time Compared to Other States (Average Number of Days) .... 22
Table 12: Project Duration, 1997–2001............................................................................ 23
Table 13: Letting Date Adjustment, 1997–2001............................................................... 23
Table 14: Project Duration by Type of Project................................................................. 24
Table 15: Project Duration and Value by Type of Project................................................ 24
Table 16: Project Duration by Type of Project................................................................. 25
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents the results of an analysis to establish baseline measures of project
development cycle times at the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT). It also
presents a benchmarking study that surveyed cycle times in other states; the study was
used to compare ADOT cycle times to a national standard. This report closes with the
conclusions from the cycle time analysis and recommendations for ADOT to achieve best
practice in its management of project delivery cycle times.
ADOT CYCLE TIME ANALYSIS
The general approach to identifying and calculating cycle time used data drawn from
three separate databases of project information at ADOT: the Priority Programming
System (PPS), the Primavera Project Planner (P3), and Advantage, which is ADOT’s
financial management system.
Based on the information available, the following measures were calculated as indicators
of cycle times:
• Number of days between the start of scoping and the bid advertisement.
• Number of days between the date when a scoping document was requested
and the bid advertisement date.
• Number of days between the first charges made against the project and the
date it was advertised for construction.
Of the 17 different types of projects categorized by ADOT, the following five were
chosen for analysis: Bridge, District Minor (those funded from district lump sum sub-program
accounts), Major (more than $3 million), Minor (less than $2 million), and
Pavement Preservation.
Findings are somewhat limited in applicability because:
• Cycle time measurements are skewed by unrecorded work stoppages.
• Information was collected from three distinct databases, and these databases
have little connection with each other.
• More than 50 percent of the projects in the study population were not
included in the analysis because of lack of data items required to compute the
indicators.
• ADOT district offices provided cost estimates, and supplemented project
award values and dates on some projects. Several of the selected projects did
not have data for the amount awarded for the winning bid.
2
BENCHMARKING STUDY WITH OTHER STATE DEPARTMENTS OF
TRANSPORTATION
To perform a benchmarking study with other state departments of transportation,
representatives from the following organizations were contacted:
• Massachusetts Highway Department (MassHighway).
• Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT).
• Montana Department of Transportation (MDT).
• Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT).
• New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT).
• New Mexico Department of Transportation (NMDOT).
• Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT).
• Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT).
These representatives were queried as to whether their agencies had conducted cycle time
analysis and, if so, whether they had data available. In addition, this study relied on
experience that Dye Management Group, Inc. has accumulated in conducting
preconstruction analysis on past projects.
When looking at benchmarking data, it is important to remember that the definitions of
start and end vary between states, projects are categorized according to different
definitions in different states, and the time period covered varies between states.
We found that a majority of state departments of transportation do not keep track of
project cycle time. Many of the states re-baseline projects; that is, when delays arise, the
original schedule is shifted out to compensate for the delay. Under this procedure, project
start dates are not maintained, so determining the actual cycle times is impossible.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Conclusions
Following are the conclusions based on the results of the cycle time analysis:
• There is some indication that ADOT’s more complex projects are not taking
longer than similar projects in other states; however, pavement preservation
projects are taking longer.
3
• Rework is a major factor in delay. Rework results from poor communication,
lack of district involvement early in the design phase, limited ability to “lock
in” scope changes due to the permitting process, and lack of early quality
control to identify issues.
• Environmental and right-of-way activities could start earlier. Best practice
analysis indicates that other states are starting environmental and right-of-way
activities earlier in the process.
• There is not enough standardization of project management procedures,
approaches, and designs. Best practices are moving towards more
standardization.
• There is a lag between pre-design and design. The time between identification
of a project need and the beginning of design work adds to cycle time.
Recommendations
The recommendations outlined below are based on the research performed through the
cycle time analysis and on information developed for the best project management
practices study:
• Monitor and report project cycle time. This requires the establishment of an
agreed measure of cycle time. Accurate cycle time data make it possible to
identify trends and provide opportunities for improvement.
• Establish project duration standards by project type.
• Address the disconnect between the scoping process and design. This can be
done in one of the following two ways:
• Option 1. Make project managers responsible for scoping using the
pre-design group expertise as a technical resource.
• Option 2. Reengineer the pre-design and scoping processes.
• Establish a cycle time baseline and an agenda for action to reduce cycle time.
• Identify and address bottlenecks. Bottlenecks are often caused by local
government agreements, approval of consultant work scopes, and final plan
checking processes. Work groups can be convened to identify process
bottlenecks.
4
5
INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of an analysis to establish baseline measures of project
development cycle times at ADOT. It also presents a benchmarking study that surveyed
the cycle times at other states to compare these with the existing cycle times at ADOT.
The document closes with conclusions from the analysis and recommendations for
ADOT to move forward in achieving best practices in project cycle time management.
The first section contains a discussion of actual cycle times at ADOT. The analysis
focused on determining the number of days between the time that projects are scoped
during pre-design to the time they are actually advertised for bidding.
The second section contains a benchmarking study that examines the cycle times in other
states to determine where ADOT fits into the national spectrum of project delivery. The
benchmarking study looked at seven states. Based on a close analysis of the available
data, four of these states were selected for a more detailed study in order to furnish a
benchmarking standard.
The third section contains the cycle time analysis conclusions and recommendations. The
conclusions explain how well ADOT is doing compared to nationwide cycle times. The
recommendations point to a direction for ADOT to take in improving cycle times for
project delivery.
6
7
ADOT CYCLE TIME ANALYSIS
This section presents the results of an analysis to establish baseline measures of project
development cycle times at ADOT. Specifically, these measures show how many days
pass between the date projects are scoped during pre-design and the date they are
advertised for bidding to construct, and between the date initial work is charged by
ADOT and the date this work is advertised for bidding to construct. The analysis
excluded some project types, including MAG Life Cycle projects.
The general approach to identifying and calculating cycle time measurements of
construction projects involved the following steps:
• Analyze- available databases including the P3 and the PPS.
• Acquire- a copy of the data dictionary for the PPS database.
• Evaluate- data fields and determined which fields were most useful to use for
conducting the analysis.
• Request that ADOT run a query of the PPS database for a specific set of
projects over a specific period.
• Work with the project scheduling office to derive data from ADOT’s
financial management system (Advantage) regarding the day work began.
• Calculate cycle times for five project category types.
CYCLE TIME MEASURES
As part of the initial assessment and data collection efforts for this analysis, the following
measures were suggested for identifying the cycle times for development and delivery of
projects prior to construction:
• Number of days between completion of pre-design work and letting (the time
when the design consultant is under contract).
• Number of days between a project entering the program and letting.
• Number of days between expenditure charged to the project (once in the
program) and letting.
8
Three separate databases of project information at ADOT were utilized to determine
these measures:
• Priority Programming System (PPS) – Maintains project activity information
for providing project status that is useful for management and for the public
through the ADOT Web site.
• Primavera Project Planner (P3) – ADOT’s project scheduling system for
maintaining the schedule of milestones and activities associated with
individual projects. The data provided from P3 only indicated when the
schedule for each project was entered into the system, not when activities
related to project cycle time occurred.
• Advantage – ADOT’s financial management system for tracking labor and
material expenditures is useful for identifying when work was completed on
projects. Data on when expenditures for specific job functions are charged
against projects, are maintained within the system.
Based on the information available and collected from these systems, the following
measures were calculated as indicators of cycle time:
• Number of days between the date scoping began on a project and the date it
was advertised for construction.
• Number of days between the date the project was requested and the bid
advertisement date as recorded in the PPS database.
• Number of days between the date on which expenditure was first charged to a
programmed project and the date it was advertised for construction.
Measurement Issue
The approach to measuring cycle time once projects are in the 5-Year Program does not
address an issue raised at the outset of this project: projects have entered and left the
program, or have been combined, increasing cycle time. Our data use, as the starting
point, the first charges that were incurred against the project identification number in the
PPS database for the project that was advertised. Without tracking backwards
individually for projects, we were unable to deal with situations in which projects were
combined for letting, entered the 5-Year Program under one number, dropped out, and
then re-entered.
9
SPECIFIC ANALYSIS STEPS
The specific approach for collecting and analyzing project delivery data involved the
following:
1. Collecting project activity data using ADOT’s PPS data warehouse for a
sample of projects let between May 1, 2001, and April 30, 2002. The number
of projects available totaled 167. Project activity data that were chosen
included the following key fields:
• TRACS Number: The data field used for tracking the status of an individual
project.
• Project ID: The unique identification number used for managing and tracking
capital projects.
• Project Category: The type of project as defined by ADOT. ADOT has
categorized 17 different types of projects. Of these, the following project
types were included:
• Bridge – This type of project involves roadway engineering work that
is specific to bridges and bridge structures, such as deck repairs and
replacements, and joint repairs, among others.
• District Minor – This type of project includes projects specifically
funded out of district lump sum sub-program accounts. Projects are
selected by the district.
• Major – This type of project provides significant capacity
improvements and includes other significant projects, such as traffic
interchanges, climbing/passing lanes, and ITS projects. Values of
projects are typically greater than $3 million.
• Minor – Similar to major projects, but project values are generally
less than $2 million.
• Pavement Preservation – This type of project involves work to
preserve or recondition roadway surfaces. The type of work is
generally limited to removal and replacement, mill and replacement,
overlay, or the sealing of pavement surfaces.
2. Requesting that ADOT staff query data within the financial management
system to determine when the first labor or material charges were recorded for
individual projects. Initial Expenditure, the date defined as the point when a
project is considered programmed and entered into the 5-Year Program, was
collected for each project in this analysis.
10
3. Calculating the number of days between the date requested and the bid
advertisement date, and between initial expenditure and the bid advertisement
date.
4. Reviewing and assessing data from 167 projects:
• Of these 167 projects, 54 projects with the following category types were
eliminated: Intermediate, MAG Life Cycle, Roadside Improvement, Safety,
State Park Roads, and Statewide Program. These projects were excluded
because they do not lend themselves well to comparison with other states. Of
the remaining 113, those projects without data for Date Requested or Initial
Expenditure were eliminated from the analysis. Once all projects with
insufficient data were cut from the data group, there remained:
• Forty projects available for the cycle time measure from date
requested to bid advertisement date.
• Ninety-five projects available for the cycle time measure from date of
initial expenditure to bid advertisement date.
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
The figures and tables below illustrate the projects with valid data present in the PPS and
financial management system that yielded calculated results for the two performance
measures for cycle time.
11
Bridge Projects
Figure 1 illustrates the length of project development, in days, between the dates scoping
was requested for six bridge projects and the dates the projects were advertised for
construction. The figure lists the projects by longest to shortest duration. In addition, the
figure shows the value of the bid award for each of the six projects. Table 1 contains the
data for Figure 1.
Figure 1: Bridge Projects – Bid Award Value, and Days Between Scoping Request
and Project Advertisement (May 2001–April 2002)
Table 1: Data for Figure 1
Project ID Duration (days) Bid Award ($000s)
4742 2,201 $91
4572 1,830 $1,611
5121 1,618 $5,501
9284 671 $3,423
10826 32 $404
10827 15 $69
12
Figure 2 illustrates the length of project development, in days, between the dates labor or
material charges accrued to 16 projects (from ADOT’s Advantage system) and the dates
the projects were advertised for construction. It was possible to calculate the length of
project development for 16 projects. The figure shows the projects by longest to shortest
duration. In addition, the figure shows the value of the bid award for the 16 projects.
Table 2 contains the data for Figure 2.
Figure 2: Bridge Projects – Bid Award Value, and Days Between First Date of
Project Charges and Advertisement Date (May 2001–April 2002)
Table 2: Data for Figure 2
Project ID Duration
(days)
Bid Award
($000s) Project ID Duration
(days)
Bid Award
($000s)
5121 2,513 $5,501 9284 380 $3,423
7972 1,789 $3,377 10190 368 $440
4572 1,649 $1,611 10193 334 $125
4997 1,323 $179 10200 313 $155
4742 820 $91 10790 265 $255
10135 705 $2,200 10789 176 $49
10188 649 $497 10826 60 $404
10205 406 $465 10827 43 $69
13
District Minor and Minor Projects
Figure 3 illustrates the length of project development, in days, between the dates scoping
was requested for six District Minor and Minor projects and the dates the projects were
advertised for construction. The figure lists the projects by longest to shortest duration. In
addition, the figure shows the value of the bid award for each of the six projects. Table 3
contains the data for Figure 3.
Figure 3: District Minor/Minor Projects – Bid Award Value, and Days Between
Scoping Request and Project Advertisement (May 2001–April 2002)
Table 3: Data for Figure 3
Project ID Duration
(days)
Bid Award
($000s) Project ID Duration
(days)
Bid Award
($000s)
4738 2,201 $482 8655 955 $652
4115 1,916 $1,932 9195 923 $794
4111 1,861 $156 8725 920 $652
4107 1,747 $3,344 9197 876 $62
8313 1,362 $400 9315 854 $180
8314 1,362 $400 9056 694 $503
4121 1,217 $300 10333 600 $757
8089 1,202 $450 10265 569 $1,293
8100 1,187 $1,070 10348 326 $267
8736 1,186 $400 10321 272 $250
8574 992 $213 10775 186 $389
14
Figure 4 illustrates the length of project development, in days, between the date labor or
material charges accrued to the 28 District Minor and Minor projects (from ADOT’s
Advantage system) and the date the projects were advertised for construction. The figure
lists the projects by longest to shortest duration. In addition, the figure shows the value of
the bid award for the 28 projects. Table 4 contains the data for Figure 4.
Figure 4: District Minor/Minor Projects – Bid Award Value, and Days Between
First Date of Project Charges and Advertisement Date (May 2001–April 2002)
Table 4: Data for Figure 4
Project ID Duration
(days)
Bid Award
($000s) Project ID Duration
(days)
Bid Award
($000s)
4111 1,637 $156 9195 712 $794
4107 1,401 $3,344 4100 686 $265
4738 1,323 $482 9197 651 $62
4115 1,218 $1,932 9056 615 $503
10791 1,032 $207 10456 615 $200
4121 986 $300 10489 615 $200
8089 982 $450 10676 511 $247
8100 973 $1,070 10285 372 $1,293
8736 955 $400 10321 222 $250
8574 891 $213 10333 207 $757
9315 843 $180 10348 178 $267
8655 785 $652 10795 82 $377
8725 785 $652 10775 29 $389
10452 771 $557 10940 29 $389
15
Major Projects
Figure 5 illustrates the length of project development, in days, between the dates scoping
was requested for a nine Major projects and the dates the projects were advertised for
construction. . The figure lists the projects by longest to shortest duration. In addition, the
figure shows the value of the bid award for each of the nine projects. Table 5 contains the
data for Figure 5.
Figure 5: Major Projects – Bid Award Value, and Days Between Scoping Request
and Project Advertisement (May 2001–April 2002)
Table 5: Data for Figure 5
Project ID Duration
(days)
Bid Award
($000s) Project ID Duration
(days)
Bid Award
($000s)
5080 1,830 $16,000 7981 1,499 $12,930
4640 1,757 $3,344 5064 510 $9,727
4574 1,723 $4,525 10170 449 $7,558
2156 1,554 $11,656 10353 394 $900
7700 1,518 $1,154
16
Figure 6 illustrates the length of project development, in days, between the dates scoping
was requested for 13 Major projects and the dates the projects were advertised for
construction. The figure lists the projects by longest to shortest duration. In addition, the
figure shows the value of the bid award for each of the 13 projects. Table 6 contains the
data for Figure 6.
Figure 6: Major Projects – Bid Award Value, and Days Between First Date of
Project Charges and Advertisement Date (May 2001–April 2002)
Table 6: Data for Figure 6
Project ID Duration
(days)
Bid Award
($000s) Project ID Duration
(days)
Bid Award
($000s)
1588 2,284 $7,796 4574 1,400 $4,525
7981 2,283 $12,930 2152 1,246 $12,625
1432 1,883 $6,295 595 1,207 $7,000
621 1,875 $1,330 2156 1,075 $11,656
5080 1,744 $16,000 770 986 $1,154
594 1,547 $2,260 602 511 $13,117
3631 1,440 $32,500
17
Pavement Preservation Projects
Figure 7 illustrates the length of project development, in days, between the dates scoping
was requested for three Pavement Preservation projects and the dates the projects were
advertised for construction. It was possible to calculate the length of project development
for only three Pavement Preservation projects. The figure lists the projects by longest to
shortest duration. In addition, the figure shows the value of the bid award for each of the
three projects. Table 7 contains the data for Figure 7.
Figure 7: Pavement Preservation Projects – Bid Award Value, and Days Between
Scoping Request and Project Advertisement (May 2001–April 2002)
Table 7: Data for Figure 7
Project ID Duration (days) Bid Award ($000s)
10083 811 $1,512
10089 708 $2,645
10158 671 $2,189
18
Figure 8 illustrates the length of project development, in days, between the dates scoping
was requested 38 Pavement Preservation projects and the dates the projects were
advertised for construction. It was possible to calculate the length of project development
for. The figure lists the projects by longest to shortest duration. In addition, the figure
shows the value of the bid award for each of the 38 projects. Table 8 contains the data for
Figure 8.
Figure 8: Pavement Preservation Projects – Bid Award Value, and Days Between
First Date of Project Charges and Advertisement Date
Table 8: Data for Figure 8
Project ID Duration
(days)
Bid Award
($000s) Project ID Duration
(days)
Bid Award
($000s)
8007 1,257 $1,542 8902 886 $898
7990 1,140 $3,564 8928 880 $406
8912 1,106 $1,422 8920 869 $519
7998 1,104 $3,377 8926 839 $1,846
8910 1,089 $1,448 8932 828 $2,074
8906 1,071 $1,949 8955 811 $900
8895 1,016 $1,098 8937 771 $630
8942 1,007 $2,654 8944 734 $2,611
10089 1,000 $2,645 8917 700 $1,157
8905 999 $4,577 10158 629 $2,189
8943 992 $2,611 10083 593 $1,512
8916 982 $1,265 8936 586 $434
8923 974 $1,268 8913 584 $0
7993 965 $556 8026 547 $709
8934 947 $5,550 8931 453 $158
8911 938 $2,260 10331 448 $506
8924 938 $1,330 7994 334 $455
8899 896 $2,632 10398 309 $2,654
8901 891 $1,285 8009 89 $1,028
19
DATA LIMITATIONS ON CYCLE TIME RESULTS
The following points are highlighted regarding the data and results of the cycle time
measures from ADOT’s databases:
• Cycle time measurements were skewed by unrecorded project work
stoppages.
The cycle time measurements only took into account when the work for an
overall phase of project delivery began and when it ended. However, on
many projects, work stoppages occurred. If the durations of these
downtimes were eliminated from the analysis, then the overall cycle times
for projects would decrease. However, collection of the information
necessary to accomplish this more refined approach would itself require an
extensive period.
• Information was collected from three distinct databases.
As previously stated, three databases were utilized for this analysis.
During the effort, it was discovered that these databases do not have any
direct connection; data in one must be copied, then transferred or manually
entered into the others. In some cases, initial expenditure data for the
design phase were used due to lack of data for expenditures during the
planning phase.
• More than 50 percent of the projects in the sample group were not included in
the analysis.
Out of 167 projects let between May 2001 and April 2002, 113 were of the
five category types included in the analysis. Of these 113, only 95 projects
were included for the initial expenditure/bid date measure; the initial
expenditure data field was empty for the remaining 18. Only 40 projects
could be included for the date requested/bid date measure due to the lack
of information. Projects that were not used included those for which the
date requested data field was empty.
• ADOT district offices provided cost estimates, and supplemented project
award values and dates on some projects.
Data for the amount awarded for the winning bid was not available for
several of the selected projects. In these cases, the PPS database field for
the ADOT district-estimated project cost was used. If no cost information
was available for a project, the project was eliminated from the analysis.
20
COMPARISON OF PROJECTS BASED ON ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
For each of the projects in the sample groups, the primary engineering consultants
contracted to perform the work during the scoping and design phases were identified. A
comparison among projects that had the same consultant for both scoping and design
phases was completed. Overall, the analysis indicates that using the same consultant can
reduce cycle time by more than 100 days.
Table 9 below presents the results based on date of project request. Of the 40 projects in
the sample pool with valid data for date-of-project request, the consultant data for 11
projects could be determined; all of these were District Minor projects. Of these, five had
the same consultant for both phases; the other six had different firms for each phase. The
results show that using the same consultant for both scoping and design phases reduced
cycle time, on average, by more than 100 days.
Table 9: Effect of Using the Same Engineering Consultant Firm on Project Design,
Based on Date of Project Request
Same Consultant Different Consultant
Project Category No. Average
Duration
Total
Value* No. Average
Duration
Total
Value*
Delta
District Minor 5 800 $2,426 6 907 $3,532 -107
Source: ADOT, Dye Management Group, Inc. analysis.
Note (*): in millions.
Table 10 below presents the results based on date of initial expenditure. Of the 95
projects in the sample pool with valid data for date of initial expenditure, the consultant
data for 27 projects were identified. For Bridge projects, using the same consultant for
both phases reduced cycle time, on average, by 515 days. Cycle time for District Minor
projects with the same consultant was almost 160 days shorter than for similar projects
with different consultants. Due to insufficient data on Major projects and on Pavement
Preservation projects, conclusions could not be made.
Table 10: Effect of Using the Same Engineering Consultant Firm on Project Design,
Based on Date of Initial Expenditure
Same Consultant Different Consultant
Project Category No. Average
Duration
Total
Value* No. Average
Duration
Total
Value*
Delta
Bridge 3 338 $720 4 853 $2,093 -515
District Minor 3 514 $1,123 9 672 $4,436 -158
Major 1 2,283 $12,930 1 1,400 $4,525 883
Pavement Preservation 1 448 $506 5 955 $11,693 -507
Overall 8 661 $15,279 19 777 $22,747 -116
Source: ADOT, Dye Management Group, Inc. analysis.
Note (*): in millions.
21
BENCHMARKING STUDY WITH OTHER STATE
DEPARTMENTS OF TRANSPORTATION
The purpose of the benchmarking study was to gain comparative data on project cycle
times in other states.
APPROACH
The approach to collecting benchmark data included the following:
• Leveraging the ADOT best project management practices survey.
The best practices survey, performed as part of the ADOT research project
(SPR-511), evaluating project management practices, was used to obtain
data. Questions were asked regarding cycle time data and measurement.
Representatives of the following organizations were interviewed by
telephone:
• Massachusetts Highway Department (MassHighway).
• Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT).
• Montana Department of Transportation (MDT).
• Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT).
• New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT).
• New Mexico Department of Transportation (NMDOT).
• Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT).
• Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT).
Telephone interviews were conducted in order to identify whether these
states had assembled cycle time data. Followup calls were made to
complete any required data.
• Analyzing data sets from other Dye Management Group, Inc. studies.
Due to the difficulty encountered in deriving cycle time data, we also
conducted analysis from data sets that Dye Management Group, Inc. had
assembled on preconstruction reviews for other states.
22
RESULTS
Most of the benchmark states do not maintain and report project cycle time data for
projects prior to construction. In a limited number of cases, states have conducted special
studies to collect that data. Some of the responding states indicated that they could not
allocate time to produce an ad hoc report for our research purposes. A frequent question
respondents asked was, “What is the start point?” In a number of states, projects enter
and leave the 5-Year Program; therefore, project cycle time is difficult to compute.
Despite these limitations, we were able to generate some illustrative comparison data
from a few states. Caution should be taken in making comparisons: 1) the definitions of
start and end in the data obtained vary between the states, 2) projects are categorized
according to different definitions in different states, and 3) the period covered varies
between the states. Table 11 presents ADOT cycle time compared to other states.
Table 11: ADOT Cycle Time Compared to Other States (Average Number of Days)
Arizona (median
number of days) Montana Minnesota
Project Category
Scoping to
Award
Expenditure
to Award
Preconstruction
Project Delivery*
Project
Duration**
Letting
Adjustments***
Major Construction 1,518 1,440 2,555 1,438 827
Restoration/Rehabilitation 1,533
Reconstruction 1,686 568
Reconditioning 854 247
Resurfacing 1,022 552 46
Pavement Preservation 889
Road Repair 157 29
Bridge 1,145 393 1,314
Bridge Replacement 1,854 1,251
Bridge Improvement 469 141
District Minor 974 742
Safety 949 596 32
Rest Area/Beautification 556 277
Source: ADOT, MDT, Mn/DOT, MDOT, Dye Management Group, Inc. analysis.
Note (*): A study of preconstruction project delivery at MDT was completed in 2000. Analysis conducted
as part of the study included evaluating the average duration between the preliminary field review and bid
ready date for several types of projects. Data were collected and analyzed for projects delivered in the
period from 1997 through 2000.
Note (**): Project Duration refers to the period from the end of the first project activity to the construction
letting. Data refer to projects from January 1, 1997, through December 31, 2001.
Note (***): Letting Adjustments refer to the difference in elapsed time between the date a project was
originally programmed for letting and when it was actually let. Data refer to projects from January 1,
1997, through December 31, 2001.
23
Minnesota Department of Transportation
Table 12 and Table 13 summarize data on project duration and letting adjustment for
Minnesota. For our purposes, project duration refers to the period from the end of the
first project activity to the construction letting. Letting date adjustment refers to the
difference in elapsed time between the date a project was originally programmed for
letting and when it was actually let.
Table 12: Project Duration, 1997–2001
Project Category Total
Projects
Average
Duration (days)
Standard
Deviation*
Average Duration
(Years)
Major Construction 137 1,438 748.07 3.94
Reconstruction 70 1,686 621.57 4.62
Reconditioning 121 854 487.61 2.34
Resurfacing 279 552 296.56 1.51
Road Repair 211 157 133.91 0.43
Bridge Replacement 99 1,854 925.26 5.08
Bridge Improvement 96 469 313.72 1.28
Safety 121 596 377.14 1.63
Rest Area/Beautification 51 556 390.60 1.52
Total 1,185
Average Days 791
Average Years 2.16
Source: Mn/DOT, Dye Management Group, Inc. analysis.
Note (*): For example, if the average duration is 1,000 days and the standard deviation is 200, we would
have reasonable confidence that the project durations would fall between 800 and 1,200 days.
Table 13: Letting Date Adjustment, 1997–2001
Project Category Total
Projects
Average
Duration (days)
Standard
Deviation*
Average Duration
(Years)
Major Construction 137 827 570.00 2.27
Reconstruction 70 568 391.13 1.56
Reconditioning 121 247 338.65 0.68
Resurfacing 279 46 232.33 0.13
Road Repair 211 29 144.22 0.08
Bridge Replacement 99 1251 841.26 3.43
Bridge Improvement 96 141 269.26 0.38
Safety 121 32 492.07 0.09
Rest Area/Beautification 51 277 250.23 0.76
Total 1,185
Average Days 324
Average Years 0.89
Source: Mn/DOT, Dye Management Group, Inc. analysis.
Note (*): For example, if the average duration is 1,000 days and the standard deviation is 200, we would
have reasonable confidence that the project durations would fall between 800 and 1,200 days.
24
Montana Department of Transportation
A study of preconstruction project delivery at the MDT was completed in 2000. Analysis
conducted as part of the study included evaluating the average duration between the
preliminary field review and the bid ready date for several types of projects. Data (as
shown in Table 14) was collected and analyzed for projects delivered in the period from
1997 through 2000. This is a point after the project is in the 5-Year Program and most
likely a little later in the project life cycle than the expenditure to award measure used in
our analysis of ADOT project cycle time.
Table 14: Project Duration by Type of Project
Project Category Duration (years) Duration* (days)
New Construction/
Rehabilitation
7.0 2,555
Restoration/Rehabilitation 4.2 1,533
Resurfacing/Minor Widening 2.8 1,022
Bridge 3.6 1,314
Safety/Traffic 2.6 949
Overall 4.0 1,460
Note (*): Calculated from cycle time duration in years.
Michigan Department of Transportation
Michigan is one of only a few states surveyed that has monitored and kept track of cycle
time. Table 15 presents project cycle durations, between the scoping date and the project
letting date, for projects let between 1998 and 2001.
Table 15: Project Duration and Value by Type of Project
Project Category Projects Duration
(days)
Average Value
Bridge 62 449 $2,522,000
Major 66 595 $8,224,000
Minor 115 397 $862,000
Pavement Preservation 15 427 $7,568,000
New Jersey Department of Transportation
NJDOT, in conjunction with the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO), recently completed a major survey of state
departments of transportation and their management of cycle time. Results are still
pending, with a report to AASHTO due in January or February.
The work in progress was discussed with the researchers. A key finding from their work,
which was confirmed by ADOT’s best practices survey, is that the majority of state
departments of transportation do not keep track of project cycle time. Projects are
managed; however, a variety of issues create delays. Projects are re-baselined, a process
25
in which the original schedule is shifted out to compensate for the delay. Under this
procedure, project start dates are not maintained, so determining the actual cycle times is
impossible.
For New Jersey, project cycle times can be described in terms of the relative complexity
of a project, including requirements for environmental impact statements or major utility
realignment work. The data in Table 16 indicate the average design cycle times for
projects let by NJDOT. These data are not directly comparable to our ADOT data.
Table 16: Project Duration by Type of Project
Type of Project Duration (years) Duration* (days)
Requiring an EIS 6.0 1,460
Requiring an EA 5.5 2,008
Complex (Significant
Right-of-Way)
4.5 1,643
Complex (Significant
Utility Relocation)
4.0 1,460
Simple Project 2.0 730
Note (*): Calculated from cycle time duration in years.
26
27
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Following are the conclusions based on the results of the cycle time analysis:
• There is some indication that ADOT’s more complex projects are not
taking longer than projects in other states; however, pavement
preservation is taking longer.
Although there are limitations in the state-to-state data used for
comparisons, the results reported indicate that more complex ADOT
projects, major construction projects, and bridge projects are not generally
taking longer than similar projects in other states. In contrast, pavement
preservation projects appear to be taking longer.
• Rework is a major factor in delay.
Interview results indicate that rework increases cycle time and is caused
by:
• Poor communication among the parties involved in the pre-design and
design processes.
• Lack of district involvement until later stages of design.
• Limited control mechanism to “lock in” scope and design at an early
stage.
• Changes due to the permitting process.
• Quality control process not focused on early stages of the design
process.
• Quality problems cause by schedule requirements.
• Environmental and right-of-way activities could start earlier.
Although this study did not conduct a business process analysis, technical
staff indicated that due to frequent project changes, especially with regard
to scope, they are reluctant to begin right-of-way work until scope issues
are resolved. Best practices analysis results indicate that, in general, states
have worked on conducting environmental and right-of-way activities
earlier in the process and in parallel with other design activities. Interviews
indicate:
28
• Environmental and right-of-way needs should be identified and tasks
should be performed earlier in the process.
• Right-of-way staff are reluctant to do tasks earlier due to the
experience of frequent changes.
• There is not enough standardization of project management procedures,
approaches, and designs.
The best project management practices study indicates that:
• There is no automation on repetitive projects.
• ADOT is not using standardized templates for designs.
• Not all project managers use the established process.
• Project managers/teams establish their own schedules and timelines for
the project.
This indicates that there is no basis or standard for acceptable cycle time
from which to manage project delivery. The following observations are
drawn from review of documentation and interviews:
• ADOT does not establish or manage project delivery based upon
work standards for activity duration by category of project.
• There is limited documentation of how long work “should take.”
• Management information on cycle time is limited.
• Management objectives and performance expectations are focused on
letting schedule accomplishments, not delivery time or cycle time.
• There is a lag between pre-design and design
The time between identification of a project need and the beginning of design
work adds to cycle time. The factors driving this include the following:
• Due to funding, prioritization, and other factors, there is a lag between
pre-design and inclusion of scoped projects in the program.
• When programmed, the conditions (environmental, real estate, traffic)
may have changed, requiring reexamination of the scope.
• Current funding constraints and underestimation of program costs
slow down delivery.
• Cycle time for District Minor projects may be longer due to additional
activities such as permitting.
29
RECOMMENDATIONS
The recommendations outlined below are based on the research performed as part of the
cycle time analysis and on information developed for the best project management
practices study.
Management Information and Accountability
The following recommendations address the paucity of management information and
organizational accountability for cycle time. They identify immediate actions that can be
readily instituted.
Recommendations addressing the broader need for improved management information
for program and project management purposes are not made here. They will be made in
the best project management practices report. In brief, the recommendations here address
the need for monitoring duration by major activity and by the start and finish dates. This
type of information will provide data from which to systematically reduce cycle time.
Following are the management information and accountability recommendations:
• Monitor and report project cycle time.
This requires establishing agreed measures of cycle time. Issues to be
resolved include determining a starting point; the end point could be set at
the time the project is “ready” to be advertised. It will be important to
account for situations in which projects enter the 5-Year Program, are not
designed, and then reenter later.
With a history of cycle time data, it will be possible to identify trends and
opportunities for improvement.
• Establish project duration standards by project type.
The intent is to establish some work standards for project duration. These
would need to be established by project type and by category of activity.
While there is variation across projects and there are arguments that can be
made about the difficulty of doing this, best practice analysis shows that
other states start their cycle time management from such data.
Delays Between the Planning, Pre-Design, STIP, and Design Processes
ADOT is confronted with a number of process and organizational issues that impact the
flow of a project from planning, through pre-design, into the 5-Year Program, and then
through the design process. The issues are broader than cycle time. They include ensuring
that the problem or need identified and addressed in planning is met through the pre-design
and design process. Each time a scope is revisited, delay and rework adversely
impact cycle time.
30
A specific cycle time delay is the apparent lag between scoping or pre-design and when
work starts on the project. The impact of this disconnect on ADOT is large. It also
impacts ADOT’s relationship with its customers and partners because the time from pre-design
to project completion is long. In addition, not all projects that go through the pre-design
process are included in the 5-Year Program in the year that the pre-design work is
done. The recommendation is to make solving this problem as priority.
Following is the recommendation for managing the delays between the planning, pre-design,
Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP), and design processes:
• Address the disparity between the scoping process and design.
Addressing the disparity between planning activities, pre-design, and
design offers a large opportunity for reducing cycle time. This study has
not undertaken a detailed process evaluation. Therefore, the
recommendation identifies options that will enable ADOT to address this
issue. These options are listed below:
• Option 1. Make project managers responsible for scoping using the
pre-design group expertise as a technical resource.
Under this action, project managers would have responsibility for
scoping. Implementation will need to address whether this should
include any scoping prior to inclusion in the 5-Year Program or
whether there should be a more detailed project scope definition once
the project is in the program.
• Option 2. Reengineer the pre-design and scoping processes.
This option could be performed in conjunction with other options.
Under this option, the current process would be reengineered. Ideas to
consider would be establishing a new project nomination or initial
scoping process (prior to the 5-Year Program). The objective would
be to reduce delay between scoping and design start.
Strengthened Project Management
Implementation of the recommendations from the best project management practices
study will position ADOT to reduce cycle time. These recommendations are designed to
improve ADOT’s overall management and delivery of projects from initiation through to
advertising. The recommendations address the policy, procedural, and organizational
changes necessary to improve project schedule management. With these
recommendations in place, ADOT will:
31
• Know how long projects should take and how long the duration of major
activities should be.
• Establish a duration (project cycle time) at the outset, and manage delivery to
that duration.
• Establish controls of scope and budget that will reduce adverse impacts on
schedule management. For example, if the project scope is locked in beyond a
certain point, then the amount of rework that causes schedule slippage would
be limited.
• Have greater project delivery standardization.
• Be able to have a baseline from which to identify cycle time reduction
opportunities.
Following is the recommendation for strengthened project management:
• Establish a cycle time baseline and an agenda for action to reduce cycle
time.
The recommendation is to establish a project cycle time baseline and, on
an ongoing basis, to identify opportunities for ensuring predictability of
cycle time and reducing project cycle time. These will include:
• Process improvements.
• The use of technology such as standard design templates to aid
designers.
• The use of alternative contracting approaches such as incentives or
disincentives designed to reduce construction cycle time.
• The use of multi-project resource loading analysis to identify and
manage bottlenecks that are caused by uneven workflow for
specialized units.
• Other initiatives.
Analysis and Action to Address Process Bottlenecks
Bottlenecks in the process arise because work planning by technical managers is difficult
due to weak scope management and limitations in the management information available.
In addition, ADOT does not balance work load across projects. With more disciplined
project management, especially scope management, ADOT will be able to identify and
address process bottlenecks.
32
Following is the recommendation for reducing process bottlenecks:
• Identify and address bottlenecks.
While our analysis did not quantify the impacts, the interview results and
conclusions drawn from assessment of ADOT’s current practices indicate
that there are likely a number of bottlenecks in the process that cause
delay. These include local government agreements, approval of consultant
work scopes, and the final plan checking process.
The recommendation can be implemented by convening work groups to
identify and address bottlenecks and their magnitude, and to assess the
actions that can be taken to reduce them.